Republicans have a plan to create jobs: promote cigarette smoking!

by Ben Hoffman

CONCORD, N.H. – As some states look to tobacco tax increases to plug budget holes, a few are bucking the national trend and saying, “If you smoke ’em, we got ’em,” looking at dropping the rate to boost cigarette sales.

In New Hampshire, supporters argue that reducing the tax by a dime would help the state compete with Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts, while opponents say it would still lose millions of dollars even if higher sales resulted.

Read more…

It’s actually a brilliant idea. By getting more people to smoke, more people will get lung diseases and that will create all sorts of jobs for doctors, nurses, hospital administration, ambulance drivers and paramedics, the oxygen industry, funeral homes, and the list goes on!

10 Comments to “Republicans have a plan to create jobs: promote cigarette smoking!”

  1. You act as if decreasing the already exorbitant cigarette taxes is putting cigarettes into people’s mouths. And, simply put, its not. If people want to smoke, let them. If people do not, then they should have the mental acuity not to.

    • [If people want to smoke, let them. ]

      Well, it goes a bit beyond that. Smokers are often inconsiderate and I don’t want to breath their second hand smoke. They also smoke around children, and second hand smoke can cause all sorts of problems with children’s health, not to mention the children are likely to become smokers. Smokers who develop cancer and don’t have insurance, or their insurance won’t pay for their treatment are leaching off the rest of us because we have to pay for their treatment. They are also more likely to be sick more often, so industries suffer.

  2. @ Reed
    Liberals are all about freedom of choice as long as you choose what they want you to choose.
    Smoking is a choice, no one puts a gun to a person’s head and forces them to do it.
    Once again Ben is completely out of touch with reality.

  3. Mandated by the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act, an FDA panel review on Friday concluded that the removal of menthol cigarettes from the market would be beneficial to “public health”. As the Los Angeles Times noted, this is equivalent to recommending that the FDA outlaw menthol cigs:

    A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel Friday said that “removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States.”

    The panel’s assessment is, in effect, a recommendation that the FDA consider banning menthol, the flavoring used in about 30% of cigarettes smoked in the U.S.

    Despite the panel’s finding that menthol cigarettes are no more harmful than ordinary cigarettes, they arrived at their recommendation for a review and possibly a prohibition.

  4. @Ben – I will agree, smokers are often inconsiderate, and I have been on that receiving end more than once. I will also admit that it has reached a level that I can see some kind of government intervention necessary. I do, I agree! But the thing is, I see this charging of an increased tax almost too… distant from the cause of the problem – smokers effecting other people. It seems to me that this is almost a, yes, I am going to say it though it will probably be highly controversial, part of “cigarette culture” that needs adjusting, and not something the ‘socially-responsible’ smokers should have to be punished for.

    As far as that goes, I do understand, and I do agree with you. However, even though I am an Independent (I possibly lean, but this will probably make you think that I do lean, however, I do not consider this one of my “leaning” point), if smokers do not have insurance… and still want to smoke (I do have sympathy for those who want to quit)… natural selection has been called, and needs to work its magic.

    @Mr. Caps – I would have to disagree. I believe liberals, historically, have been about the widening of choice. However, just recently it has become a slightly more conservative political party bases in regards to how they campaign. That being said, who knows; tomorrow the Republicans may want Social-Medicine, and the Democrats may be preaching that Guns are once again the cornerstone of the American economy, just like the were during mid-late 1800s. I will agree that smoking is a choice at the beginning, however, quitting is hard. I have not gone through the pain and difficulty, but will not minimize the immense effort it takes to quit. For that reason, I believe that spending tax payers money on prevention and helping those who want to quit, quit is a worthy cause (everything except the ‘truth’ campaign, which I hate pretty much more than anything on the face of this planet). But once people start, and continue, I have to agree, no one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to CONTINUE smoking.

    [on a side note, I am sorry if some of this is unintelligible or simple… stupid. I just woke up, and have had no coffee… yet]

  5. @Ben,

    Once again, you can’t see anything beyond the surface. It’s too complicated to have to think about repercussions, so you just latch on to simple-minded talking points.

    It’s 2011, when people make the choice to pick up and start using cigarettes they know full well what they’re getting into.
    The repercussions are so blatantly obvious that they are not worth mentioning.

  6. How do you rate the way Barack Obama is handling economic issues as President.excellent, good, fair or poor?
    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters show that just 31% rate Obamas handling of economic issues as good or excellent. Forty-five percent (45%) say the president is doing a poor job handling these issues.

    • [How do you rate the way Barack Obama is handling economic issues as President.excellent, good, fair or poor?]

      Poor. The “too big to fail” banks have gotten even bigger and there’s no regulation in place to prevent another economic meltdown. He should have let all the Bush tax cuts expire to get the deficits under control. Not only did he not do that, he added more tax cuts! We need some tariffs in place to put American manufacturers on a level playing field, but nothing like that has been mentioned. He could use his orator skills to promote a “buy American” policy, which doesn’t need the approval of Congress, but nary a word.

      He has done some good things, like promoting clean fuel technologies and funding high-speed rail, but we are at a time in history when we need another Teddy Roosevelt. Obama’s not even a Bill Clinton.

      That said, Rasmussen polls are extremely biased, as are their analyses, so it’s probably not as bad as their results show.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: